From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <13426df10901070855t49869a03k3db4fb51b69373a3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed,  7 Jan 2009 08:55:43 -0800
From: "ron minnich" <rminnich@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <94fd010cc7b6b876b4fb7da01f109fd0@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <9D53E35A-6A8A-43C7-A1A7-98D566FC061A@sun.com>
	<94fd010cc7b6b876b4fb7da01f109fd0@quanstro.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] directly opening Plan9 devices
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7b7c0d64-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

The underlying assumption of motivation for this discussion is that
jailing (or whatever we want to call it) is somehow a good thing.
Given that every CPU we care about comes with virtualization hardware,
I just can't see the point of jails -- seems like an idea whose time
has gone, kind of like 8086 segments.

If we give up on using RFNOMNT as a jailing mechanism, do the concerns
really make any sense?

ron